Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for the murder of Tillu @ Devi Singh and assault on Tularam – Trial court’s judgment upheld by the High Court – Supreme Court dismisses appeal, confirming the Appellant’s involvement and presence at the scene based on consistent eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and recovery of the weapon [Paras 1-70].

Eyewitness Testimony – Consistency and Credibility – Supreme Court emphasizes the reliability of eyewitness accounts, noting the consistent identification of the Appellant and the corroborative medical evidence – Reiterates that minor discrepancies do not vitiate the core of prosecution’s case [Paras 20-51].

Dying Declaration – Admissibility under Section 32(1) of IEA – Statement of deceased Tularam recorded by Investigating Officer treated as dying declaration despite absence of medical fitness certificate – Court underscores that procedural lapses do not invalidate otherwise credible and voluntary dying declarations [Paras 62-69].

Disclosure Statement and Recovery – Application of Section 27 of IEA – Knife used in the crime recovered based on the Appellant’s disclosure statement – Court validates admissibility and relevance of recovery as crucial corroborative evidence [Paras 52-58].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender if on bail; otherwise, to serve the remainder of the sentence in custody [Paras 70-71].

Res Judicata – Application in Civil Suits – Appellant's suit for declaration of title over specific land parcels was initially decreed by the trial court – First Appellate Court and High Court reversed the decree, applying the principle of res judicata based on an earlier title suit – Supreme Court examined whether the previous suit directly and substantially adjudicated on the issues relevant to the current suit – Held that the earlier suit did not adjudicate on the specific rights of the appellant over the disputed land [Paras 1-22].

Conditions for Res Judicata Among Co-Defendants – Supreme Court outlined three essential conditions for applying res judicata between co-defendants: (i) conflict of interest between co-defendants; (ii) necessity to decide the conflict for granting relief to the plaintiff; (iii) final decision on the conflict – Found no such conflict adjudicated in the earlier suit [Paras 13-25].

Adjudication of Property Rights – Court affirmed the appellant's established title and possession over the disputed land based on documentary evidence and historical possession – The claim of adverse possession by the Cantonment Board over the entire land was not substantiated [Paras 26-34].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of High Court and First Appellate Court set aside – Trial court's decree restored, confirming the appellant’s title over the suit land – No order as to costs [Paras 35-36].

Arbitration Law – Remand by Appellate Court – The Division Bench's power to remand under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act – Held that the Division Bench was correct in remanding the matter for reconsideration as the Single Judge did not address several issues and provided inadequate reasoning – Appellate court can remand for fresh consideration when the lower court’s decision is unreasoned and incomplete [Paras 1-15].

Specific Performance – Continuous Supervision – Grant of specific performance in cases requiring continuous court supervision – Held that such contracts fall within the exceptions under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act – The arbitrator's award for specific performance involving slum redevelopment with detailed continuous acts and permissions was improper [Paras 10-12].

Damages – Evidence and Natural Justice – Award of damages must be based on comprehensive evidence – The arbitrator’s reliance on external news reports post-arguments without the parties' knowledge violates natural justice – Arbitrator found to have applied different standards of proof to the parties [Paras 11-12].

Scope of Judicial Review – Arbitration Awards – Interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 and appeal under Section 37 – Courts should not reassess the merits but ensure no excess of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice – Division Bench correctly refrained from detailed re-evaluation and ordered remand due to inadequate reasoning by the Single Judge [Paras 15].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Matter remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration with a directive for comprehensive reasoning addressing all issues raised by the parties – Interim orders to continue till fresh hearing.

Criminal Law – Discharge Application – Appellant sought discharge from charges of rape and criminal intimidation – Lower courts dismissed the application, framing charges based on prima facie evidence – Supreme Court re-evaluates the sufficiency of evidence, including contradictions in prosecutrix’s statements and lack of material evidence [Paras 1-19].

Consent – Misconception of Fact – Supreme Court examines the concept of consent under Section 90 IPC – Finds that prosecutrix’s consent was not vitiated by misconception or coercion – Relationship was consensual, allegations of blackmail and threats not substantiated by evidence [Paras 20-24].

Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Court notes the absence of critical evidence such as photographs, mobile phone, and financial transactions – Finds that the prosecutrix’s claims are unsupported by tangible proof, weakening the prosecution’s case [Paras 17, 24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of the High Court and Sessions Judge set aside – Criminal proceedings quashed – Supreme Court emphasizes that continuing the trial would be an abuse of judicial process due to lack of credible evidence and consensual nature of the relationship [Paras 25-28].

Arbitration Law - Limitation for Setting Aside Award - Appellant State challenged arbitral award dated June 30, 2022 - Petition under Section 34 filed on October 31, 2022 after Pooja vacation - High Court dismissed the petition for being time-barred - Supreme Court affirmed High Court's decision - Held, limitation period expired on September 30, 2022 - No benefit under Section 4 of Limitation Act since prescribed period expired before court vacation - Petition under Section 34 not filed within extended period allowed by proviso to Section 34(3) [Paras 1-11].

Period of Limitation - Calculation under Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Limitation period for challenging arbitral award is three months - Computation of period excludes the date of receipt of award - Application filed beyond the three-month period plus maximum allowable extension of 30 days is time-barred [Paras 5-8].

Section 4 of Limitation Act - Applicability to Arbitration Cases - Explained that 'prescribed period' does not include the 30-day extension under Section 34(3) proviso - Section 4 not applicable where the original period of limitation expired before the court's closure [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - High Court's dismissal of the petition under Section 34 for being time-barred upheld - No merit in appellants' argument for extension under Limitation Act provisions [Para 11].

Criminal Law - Conviction for Murder and Unlawful Assembly - Appellants challenged the conviction under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, and 307 r/w 149 IPC - Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentences - Appellants' participation as part of the unlawful assembly with common object to commit murder established - No active role needed for conviction under Section 149 IPC [Paras 1-33].

Unlawful Assembly - Common Object - Presence of appellants at the crime scene with other accused persons sufficient for conviction under Section 149 IPC - Evidence of eye-witnesses substantiating appellants' presence and common intention - Conviction upheld despite no specific roles assigned to appellants [Paras 17-30].

Life Imprisonment - Minimum Sentence for Murder - Appellants' plea for reduction of sentence due to long incarceration rejected - Minimum sentence for murder is life imprisonment - Appellants may apply for remission or premature release as per State policy [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Appeals dismissed - Conviction and sentence upheld - Appellants may seek remission or premature release in accordance with State policy [Para 33].

University Administration – Appointment of Vice-Chancellors – State of West Bengal’s appointment of 24 Vice-Chancellors in 2022 challenged – High Court found appointments invalid due to non-compliance with UGC regulations – Supreme Court constituted Search-cum-Selection Committees to ensure transparent and fair selection process – Directed to adhere to statutory procedures and involvement of UGC nominees [Paras 1-24].

Search Committee – Composition and Powers – Search-cum-Selection Committees chaired by Former Chief Justice of India Justice Uday Umesh Lalit – Empowered to shortlist and recommend candidates – Emphasized importance of competence, integrity, and adherence to statutory requirements – Mandated cooperation between State Government and Chancellor for smooth appointment process [Paras 12-24].

Constitutional Law – Article 142 – Invoked to constitute Search-cum-Selection Committees for all state-aided universities in West Bengal – Aimed to resolve administrative stalemate and ensure compliance with legal standards – Court sought to maintain transparency and fairness in university administration [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Search-cum-Selection Committees constituted – State Government directed to issue advertisements for Vice-Chancellor positions – Process to be completed within specified timelines – Status report to be filed by State of West Bengal on compliance with Court's directions [Paras 14-22].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Desertion – The appellant-husband sought a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion following a failed decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The Trial Court granted the divorce, but the High Court reversed this decision, leading to the current appeal. The Supreme Court found that the appellant had been deserted by the respondent without reasonable cause, meeting the grounds for desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act [Paras 1-16].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Compliance and Consequences – The appellant's petition for restitution of conjugal rights was granted by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court, but the respondent failed to comply. This non-compliance was critical in establishing desertion [Paras 13-14].

Alimony – Lump Sum Settlement – The appellant's offer to pay Rs. 30 lakhs as a lump sum alimony was deemed reasonable. The decree for divorce would come into effect only upon payment of this amount [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the decree of divorce on grounds of desertion. The decree would become effective upon payment of Rs. 30 lakhs to the respondent as alimony [Paras 16].

Service Law – Reservation for Disabled Candidates – The respondent, a 100% visually impaired candidate, appeared in the CSE-2008 but was denied an appointment – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Delhi High Court directed the Union of India to fill backlog vacancies as per the PWD Act, 1995 – Supreme Court upholds CAT and High Court decisions, directs the Union of India to reconsider the backlog vacancies and accommodate the respondent and other similarly placed candidates [Paras 1-5].

Compliance with PWD Act – The Supreme Court observed that the Union of India failed to implement the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995, resulting in unfilled backlog vacancies – It was noted that IRS (IT) and IRS (C&E) services were not exempted from the reservation for the visually impaired as per Section 33 of the PWD Act – Court directed the Union of India to redo the exercise of ascertaining backlog vacancies for visually impaired candidates [Paras 6-11].

Section 36 of the PWD Act – The Court emphasized the need for interchange of vacancies among different categories of disabilities as per Section 36 of the PWD Act to ensure that eligible candidates are accommodated – This was particularly important given the gross default by the Union of India in implementing the PWD Act provisions [Paras 10-15].

Decision – Appeal disposed of with directions – Union of India to consider respondent no.1 and other eligible visually impaired candidates for appointment against backlog vacancies within three months – Appointments to be prospective, with no arrears of salary or seniority benefits – Directions issued as a one-time measure under Article 142 of the Constitution of India [Paras 15-15(e)].